• Ingen resultater fundet

"This is absolutely gay!" - Homosexuality within the German Armed Forces

N/A
N/A
Info
Hent
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Del ""This is absolutely gay!" - Homosexuality within the German Armed Forces"

Copied!
13
0
0

Indlæser.... (se fuldtekst nu)

Hele teksten

(1)

„This is absolutely gay!“

– Homosexuality within the German Armed Forces

B

Y

M

ARION

N

ÄSER

-L

ATHER

ABSTRACT

Drawing on Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity and Foucault’s concept of ‘dispositive’, this paper analyses historical and contemporary discourses on homosexuality within the Bun- deswehr (German Armed Forces). I argue that the interconnected norms that shape the con- struction of homosexuality in the Bundeswehr – hegemonic masculinity as a core norm for male as well as female soldiers, and the dispositives of strength and equality – have different impacts on gay men and lesbians, empowering lesbian and devaluating gay soldiers. Through a discourse analysis of legal documents, internet forum discussions, drillmasters’ utterances, and interviews with gay and lesbian soldiers, I show how these gender norms and dispositives reflect the experi- ences of homosexual soldiers as well as their coping strategies.

KEYWORDS

Bundeswehr, homosexuality, queerness, masculinity, lesbian soldiers, gay soldiers

Dr. Marion Näser-Lather is a researcher at the Centre for Gender Studies at Marburg University. Her cur- rent research interests include critical military studies, digitization, movement research, and Mediterranean Studies.

(2)

I

n 2006, a law ensuring the equal treatment of male and female soldiers became effective in Germany. This law also aimed to prevent or eliminate discrimination based on sexual identity (Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz 2006, 1). However, in 2017, Captain Marcus Otto, chairman of the working group for homosexual person- nel of the Bundeswehr1 (German Armed Forces), stated that homosexuality still is a taboo topic, that homophobic remarks are part of his daily experiences, and that ho- mosexual soldiers often do not dare to out themselves out of fear to be discriminated against, e.g. through negative evaluations (Stern 2017).

What are the reasons for this persisting discrimination? Drawing on Raewyn Con- nell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity and Michel Foucault’s dispositive concept, I will attend to the ongoing discrimination of lesbian and gay soldiers in the Bun- deswehr. In the next two chapters I will outline how hegemonic masculinity and the interconnected dispositives of strength and of equality manifest themselves and how they shape military discourses on homosex- uality in this context. In the following third chapter, I show that those norms have dif- ferent effects for lesbian and gay soldiers with the dispositive of strength facilitating an integration of “butch” lesbian soldiers, who can thus converge on the ideal of hegemonic masculinity, and hindering, to- gether with the dispositive of equality, the acceptance of gay and especially camp sol- diers. To that end, I look at daily practices based on the experiences and coping strate- gies of homosexual soldiers.

Although scholars from different coun- tries have looked at the situation of LGBT soldiers, especially in the U.S. (e.g. Belkin 2012; Herbert 1998; Rimmerman 1996;

Sundevall and Persson 2016), until now the situation of LGBT soldiers in the Bun-

deswehr has only been dealt with in a legal and psychiatric treatise (Lindner 1986) and in a paper on policy history (Storkmann 2018). The discoursivation of homosexuali- ty and the experiences of gay and lesbian soldiers of the Bundeswehr have not been researched so far.

I want to approach these two dimensions based on a discourse analysis (Jäger 2009) of different empirical material: medical ex- perts discussions of homosexuality in the Bundeswehr and related legal texts from 1980 to 2017; seven problem-centred in- terviews (Witzel 2000) with gay and les- bian soldiers conducted by me in 2011;2 the utterances of drillmasters as they ap- peared on the internet platform aganaut- en.de (hosted by former conscripts) in 2006; discussions on two open accessible German internet forums for soldiers and individuals interested in the military – sol- datentreff.de and bundeswehrforum.de – taking place between 2005 and 2008; and participant observation that I carried out as a reserve officer3at different units.

T

HE

B

UNDESWEHR

:

GENDER NORMS AND DISPOSITIVES The Bundeswehr, founded in 1955, has about 178.000 professional soldiers (Bun- deswehr.de 2018b). Conscription was abol- ished in 2011. From 1975 on, women were allowed to serve in the music corps and the medical units. Since 2001, they are allowed to serve in all units and positions.

Ongoing discussions about homosexual soldiers tend to focus on men and thus les- bians have not been the topic of organiza- tional discourse.

Socialization within the Bundeswehr im- plies warding off female traits and practic- ing what counts as hegemonic masculinity in the German military (Apelt 2006, 30).

In this context, hegemonic masculinity is characterized by an ideal of the heterosexu-

(3)

al, strong, and “real man”. As such, hege- monic masculinity in the Bundeswehr is re- established through social practices legit- imizing such men’s dominant positions and justifying the subordination of women and other marginalized masculinities, such as masculinities identified as homosexual (Connell 2015, 130f.). Hegemonic mas- culinity is socialized through bodily experi- ences (ibid., 182), e.g. formal services, sports, exercises, weapons training, and through performative speech acts like the following drillmaster utterance, which pro- pagates an aggressive heterosexuality, ob- jectifies and depreciates women: “You can say ‘ok’ to a slut with which you have agreed on a price. Here it is ‘yes, sir!’”. The implied heterosexuality of the instructor in this utterance turns the recruits into objects and reifies the equation that to penetrate means to have power and to be penetrated leaves one in an inferior position, a dynam- ic also conveyed by another drillmaster ut- terance:

“My name is lance sergeant Meyer. I spell it out for you: (F)oxtrott – (U)nion – (C)har- lie – (K)ilo!!!“ (Aganauten.de 2007).

This form of hegemonic masculinity is also reinforced by what can be called intra-orga- nizational dispositives (Näser-Lather 2011). A dispositive is defined by Foucault as:

“a thoroughly heterogenous ensemble con- sisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administra- tive measures, scientific statements, philo- sophical, moral and philanthropic proposi- tions – in short, the said as much as the un- said” (Foucault 1977, 194-195).

The first dispositive that shapes soldiers’

behaviour and that belongs to the core of soldierly identity is strength (Näser-Lather 2011, 114). Bodily as well as mental strength is regarded as a military necessity.

Strength manifests itself in the steeling of the body, through the bellowing of com- mands and marching in unison, in being able to execute an order despite adverse cir- cumstances, and through the exercise of military power.

Another dispositive related to the neces- sities and organisational structure of the Bundeswehr is the dispositive of equality which implies that all soldiers have to dress the same, carry the same gear, sleep in the same accommodations, and share the same rights and duties (Näser-Lather 2011, 131f.). The dispositive of equality supports confirmative behaviour and suppresses de- viations. While it not necessarily always fits with the ideal of hegemonic masculinity in the Bundeswehr, it presupposes this ideal and serves to strengthen cohesion, which is seen as a necessity and which leads to the rejection of everything that is different – including homosexuals and women (see al- so Connell 2015, 126).

Of course, the ideal of hegemonic mas- culinity in the Bundeswehr and the disposi- tives of strength and equality manifest themselves in varying degrees in the differ- ent branches and units. As I observed in a paratroopers unit, for example, the disposi- tive of strength is socialized through the use of louder voices, by cultivating a dash- ing way of moving, and by aspiring well trained and often muscular bodies, whereas in a media unit people tended to speak soft- er, move more “civilian-like”, and also have more freedom to express themselves as in- dividuals through more diverse hair-styles and by voicing their opinions more often.

In the media unit the dispositive of equality was thus less pronounced as also one of my interviewees, Mrs. Bloch, remarked: “as a unit, we really have been colourful”. In ad- dition, the socialization into and the expres- sion of hegemonic masculinity varies ac- cording to the individual and his or her post, e.g. whether his or her primary task is fighting (infantry, special forces) or a desk job (human resources manager).

(4)

The manifestation of hegemonic mas- culinity and the dispositives of strength and equality are also dependant on occupation- al motivation. Among my interviewees, 53% had joined the armed forces due to a patriotic motivation while the other 47%

saw the armed forces only as an opportuni- ty to receive an education or to earn money among other reasons (Näser-Lather 2011, 147-149), with the first category more prone to develop a gender identity close to the military’s ideal of hegemonic masculini- ty. Furthermore, the expression of the two core aspects of hegemonic masculinity – strength and competence (see Connell 2015, 108) – differs between ranks, with the masculinity of officers being more grounded on authority and those of the lower ranks more on bodily strength.

The ideal of hegemonic masculinity in the Bundeswehr has of course changed over time, reacting to societal discourses and needs. In an attempt to distance them- selves from the Wehrmacht – under which name the German Armed Forces promoted the connection of heroism and soldierly vi- olence during the Nazi regime (see Connell 2015, 256) – the leaders of the Bun- deswehr aimed to contain soldierly mas- culinity trough the concept of soldiers as

“citizens in uniform” (Bundesministerium der Verteidigung 2008). With missions abroad gaining importance and the long- feared occurrence of combat situations in- creasing, Major General Hans-Otto-Budde for example postulated the archaic fighter as a new ideal (Winkel 2004). Also, the need to maintain a masculine identity after the opening of the Bundeswehr to women increased and strengthened the military ideal of hegemonic masculinity. On the other hand, both the experiences of trau- matized soldiers returning from missions abroad and the presence of women soldiers have led to the acceptance of ways of sol- diering that include the display of emo- tions.

C

ONTRADICTORY PROCESSES OF

O

THERING

: T

HE DISCOURSIVATION OF GAY AND LESBIAN SOLDIERS

Legal documents and discussions within the German military show how discourses around homosexuality developed from re- jection to gradual tolerance of lesbian and gay soldiers within the Bundeswehr. Until 1980, people identified as homosexuals were dismissed out of so called health rea- sons. From 1980 on, they could be con- scripted respectively hired as soldiers, but were excluded from promotion and ad- vancement (Lindner 1986, 211f.). While paragraph 175 of the German criminal code had put homosexuality under penalty until 1994 when it was abolished, the equal treatment of lesbian and gay soldiers was first achieved with a decree in 2003 which stated that sexual behaviour of and between soldiers was “without relevance regarding disciplinary law” (Bundesminister der Ver- teidigung 2003). However, even after the decree took effect discrimination contin- ued.

In the military discrimination of lesbian and gay soldiers several persisting discursive strands can be observed. They all relate to an effort to expel the undesirable (see Con- nell 2015, 89). The first strand of discourse configures the male homosexual as the pathologized ‘other’. In 1966, medical spe- cialists of the military depicted homosexual men as deviant, unstable, intellectually im- mature, and perverse individuals with per- sonality features such as egotism, aggres- siveness, fear, and dishonesty (Finger et al.

1966, 22). These kinds of characterizations were also common 40 years later. An inter- net forum discussion in 2006 illustrates the fear of being labelled as homosexual. As part of this discussion a user asks whether one can be assigned the same room as one’s schoolmate during service. To this another user answers that “it s best to add

`we are NOT gay’ as otherwise rumours may arise.” (Bundeswehrforum 2006).

The ‘otherness’ of homosexuality has to

(5)

be warded off constantly, as also the utter- ances of drillmasters such as the following exemplify: “Guys, keep attention to the dis- tance. 80 cm towards the person in front of you [while marching]. Closer is gay and farther is desertion!” (Aganauten.de 2007).

Related to this discursive strand is the use of the attribute ‘schwul’ (gay) as a pejora- tive expression for military equipment. For example, in the internet forum soldatentre- ff.de in 2007, ‘gay’ is mentioned as a nega- tive characteristic of a rifle (Soldatentreff.de 2007). In addition, the presence of gay sol- diers is connected to the fear of the ‘disrup- tive other’ and to the fear of being contam- inated. Since the 1960s, lesbians and gay men are thought of as endangering the co- hesion, discipline, and combat power of the troops (Finger et al. 1966, 22; Lindner 1986, 211f.). A statement by the chairman of the working group for homosexual members of the Bundeswehr, Sebastian Fröhlich, confirms that such prejudices continue to exist:

“Images of guys during Pride parades in vinyl, leather, high heels, and colourful, shrill, and feminine [dominate the discussions]. Or things like: he is not capable of this because he will start to cry at any moment” (Fröhlich).

Such images of “colourful, shrill” and “ef- feminate” gay men stand in stark contrast to the dispositives of strength and equality in the German military and thus turn gay men into the other of the good soldier.

The second discoursive strand depicts gay soldiers as weak, a common phe- nomenon in patriarchal cultures (see Con- nell 2015, 203). In 1999, the Military Fed- eral Administrative Court argued that ho- mosexual relationships between a superior and a subordinate:

“influenced the authority of the superior and the subordinate’s willingness to obey [nega- tively]” (Zweiter Wehrdienstsenat 1999, 250).

Sebastian Fröhlich’s quote above also points to the devaluation of characteristics identified as female as a constitutive ele- ment of prevailing military attitudes to- wards gay soldiers. Being seen as female or effeminate puts one in opposition to the dispositive of strength. As a result, soldiers positioned in this way are rejected, as a statement on an online Bundeswehr forum shows:

“We have someone in our unit who is gay. The problem is not that he is gay, but that he be- haves totally camp” (Soldatentreff.de 2005a).

The aura of homosexuality can also “in- fect” a unit with the stigma of weakness which has to be countered by a display of strength, as another forum discussion shows. Here users discuss that two gay sol- diers had been caught in bed together. As one user describes it, the company is dubbed as ”pink” and ostracized as not be- ing sufficiently soldierly as a consequence of the incidence. The company then reacts by installing a new company commander who “is a hard but just superior, and [who]

has tightened the drill.” (Soldatentreff.de 2005b). Thus due to the equation of ho- mosexuality with weakness and due to the importance of the dispositive of strength, lesbian and gay soldiers are under pressure to only live certain aspects of their assigned queerness, namely those which correspond to the military ideal of hegemonic mas- culinity: the straight heterosexual man. A statement by a gay soldier in an online mili- tary discussion forum reflects this: “You al- so hear that gays are not able to endure.

That is not true, I can endure a lot” (Sol- datentreff.de 2005-2006). All but one of my interview partners tried to cultivate the ideal of hegemonic masculinity and did their best to avoid being seen as the camp gay men or the femme lesbian.

The third discursive strand is that of the insatiable gay man whose desire is uncon- trollable and therefore must be feared. In

(6)

this strand the image of the weak and ef- feminate faggot is complimented by its imagined flipside: the aggressive, virile sav- age that follows his sexual urges without self-restrain. This image equally challenges the dispositive of strength that heterosexual soldiers are connected with. In 1966, Rudolph Brickenstein, a military medical doctor described the behaviour of homo- sexual soldiers as being dictated by sexual urges and lust (Finger et al. 1966, 22), an image that still exists among German sol- diers today. In an online Bundeswehr fo- rum discussion a user vows to “throw” a

“confessing homosexual” out of the shower because him being there would be sexual harassment (Soldatentreff.de 2006). An- other user points out that he would not want to sleep in the same room with a gay soldier and that he, if he had to, would on- ly do so “with my buttocks to the wall”

(Soldatentreff.de 2007c).

Discourses in the Bundeswehr on lesbian soldiers are centred on the butch lesbian.

Two discursive strands dominate: on the one hand, butch lesbians are seen as valu- able assets, and on the other, as strange and un-womanly. The ideal of hegemonic mas- culinity and the dispositive of strength lead to the acceptance of the butch, strong, and masculine lesbian, and to the devaluation of

“feminine” women, as the statement by the lesbian officer Mrs. Bloch about a fellow lesbian soldier shows:

“she is very masculine. (…) she is well accept- ed. (…) she does not flinch from (…) getting her hands dirty. (…) But if you make a fuss, Barbie-like (…) that has an impact on com- radeship and it is not tolerated” (Mrs. Bloch).

Likewise, Sebastian Fröhlich points out that the term “Kampflesbe” (literally fighting lesbian or dyke) when used in the Bun- deswehr to describe a female soldier impli- cated “rather recognition [than disavowal]

in the sense of ‘finally a woman who stands her ground’”.

For women up to the rank of non-com- missioned officers, cultivating this habitus of working-class men or men who are iden- tified as masculine and strong are thought of as being more capable of soldierly abili- ties than women identified as feminine. In a forum discussion, a soldier writes:

“I definitely prefer a female comrade with short hair and (…) broad shoulders to an overdressed fashion chick (…) because I know that in an emergency, the one with the brought shoulders will carry me for a while, while the fashion chick won’t (…) because she is not even capable of doing five regular push ups” (Soldatentreff.de 2005-2007).

This ideal of hegemonic masculinity is sus- tained and re-updated through daily work, practices, and imagined archetypes of being a soldier – like getting wounded during combat – how improbable this may be for the individual soldier.

On the other hand, lesbian soldiers are deprived of their female gender status. As Mrs. Bloch reports, lesbian soldiers are thought of as being “men haters” and “not real women”. For female soldiers, the in- separable connection between hegemonic masculinity and strength leads to them nev- er succeeding in meeting this norm while keeping a female gender identity; yet at the same time, lesbians who live up to the mili- tary ideal of hegemonic masculinity are also not conforming with traditional gender im- ages which ascribe fragility and softness to women and courage and warriorhood to men (Fronhaus 1998; Seifert 1996, 95).

Therefore, while on the one hand they are in part accepted as “one of the boys”, on the other hand they are rejected. This is il- lustrated by the following statement by a soldier:

“You don t need to become female fighter (Kampfweib). (…) You can easily stay a wom- an – butches are also not accepted“ (Bundes- wehrforum.de 2009).

(7)

The background for this precarious non- position of lesbian soldiers is the constant (un)doing of gender which women in the Bundeswehr are subjected to. With the opening of all positions to women in 2001, gender norms have become more fluid while also having strengthened. The per- ceived endangerment of masculinity through the opening of the Bundeswehr to women was compensated by an enclose- ment of women in norms that reaffirm tra- ditional gender roles. Besides describing the integration of female soldiers into the Bundeswehr with the help of essentialized images of men and women in an internal military document (Zentrum Innere Führung 2000), stereotypical role images are also promoted through regulations re- garding the appearance of soldiers. Men are forbidden to wear long hair and jewellery while the same rule does not apply to women (Bundesminister der Verteidigung 1996, 114-119). Yet if women comply with these rules, they are rejected as being weak, disavowals which were especially prevalent in the early days of integrating women into the German Armed Forced (Näser-Lather 2011, 142f.). This dynamic might add to the assimilation pressure that female sol- diers experience. Aside from one infor- mant, who could be identified as tradition- ally female in attire and appearance, all les- bian soldiers I interviewed strived towards what could be called a traditional masculine appearance. The semantic field of ‘the fe- male’ overlaps with the traits ascribed to gay men. Therefore, and because they are a minority of only 11,8% percent (Bun- deswehr.de 2018a), female soldiers tend to hide their gender and tend to assimilate themselves to male gender norms in order to be accepted as soldiers (Näser 2010, 107, 113).

So, while discourses on lesbian and gay soldiers follow the constraints imposed by the dispositive of strength, resulting in les- bians being associated with strength and gay men with weakness, both are subjected

to processes of othering. Yet how are these imaginations of and ascriptions to gay and lesbian soldiers reflected in these soldier’s everyday experiences?

E

XPERIENCES AND COPING STRATEGIES OF LESBIAN AND GAY SOLDIERS

The military ideal of hegemonic masculini- ty and the wish to fend off behaviour which does not comply with this norm, lead to homosexuality being tabooed. As Sebastian Fröhlich points out, the working group for homosexual soldiers in the Bundeswehr is never mentioned as a support resource and is often also not invited to official events.

In addition, he also notes “a basic homo- phobic attitude” which manifests itself in personal comments, bullying, and even as- saults. Yet the attitudes towards homosexu- al soldiers vary considerably between units.

Sebastian Fröhlich states that in:

“the greater area of Cologne (…) it is abso- lutely normal that every unit of the Bun- deswehr has a gay man or a lesbian. Well, there they live absolutely openly and without any problems (…) But those who serve in a smaller village and maybe even in a combat unit (…) they don’t dare to say anything (…) because outing themselves would be, I think, life-threatening for them” (Frölich).

The more the military ideal of hegemonic masculinity manifests itself in a unit, the more often homosexual soldiers seem to be discriminated against. Officer Vogel de- scribes that when he and his partner were still students at the Bundeswehr University, they did not encounter any problems – the university being a place where strict mili- tary rules and habits are more loose (stu- dents don’t wear uniforms and enjoy more freedom, their primarily occupation being learning). In contrast, sergeant Brand led a double life during his time in a paratroop- ers unit. Although he was received positive- ly by his comrades when he outed himself

(8)

in 2004, his superior called him “a disgrace for the troops” and gave him low evalua- tions even though he had always been rated as outstanding prior to him coming out.

The superior also accused Mr. Brand wrongly of having sexually harassed a sub- ordinate. As a result, gays and lesbian in his unit were afraid to out themselves. They feared disadvantages just as sergeant Brand had experienced them. After his transfer to a logistic unit, Mr. Brand did not en- counter problems any longer. Him being gay did not matter to anyone and he felt totally accepted. The same goes for the les- bian couple Mrs. Meister and Mrs. Bloch who serve as officers in a media unit. Here, the dispositive of equality has less of an im- pact leading to a greater acceptance of gays and lesbians. They are invited to events to- gether, and people congratulate them on their baby.

The daily situations of gay and lesbian soldiers in the Bundeswehr thus ranges from acceptance and curiosity to rejection and/or othering. Sometimes curiosity merges with exoticization and othering, and boundaries of intimacy are crossed, ag- gressively reasserting the ideal of hegemon- ic masculinity, as officer Mrs. Meister knows very well: “Well, I often get asked:

did you have sex with a man? Or: did you have a dick in your hand yet?”

Other times, the perceived threat of de- viance from gay and lesbian soldiers is countered by positioning them as part of the other cis-gender. Sergeant Brand, for example, was invited to come along to a male strip event with his female comrades:

“there was a women’s evening in this club and they had ordered a stripper, and the girls took me with them.” Lesbian soldiers sometimes pursue this strategy themselves by trying to become “one of the boys”, be- ing part of the military community. Mrs.

Meister explains:

“When I speak to [male] comrades, (…) I almost feel as a part of their group (…)

[when] I say, wow, nice ass [about another female soldier].”

This behaviour also has the effect that she does not experience unwanted sexual atten- tion that heterosexual female soldiers often encounter:

“I really enjoy working together with men because you can (…) make insinuating jokes, without me being labelled the ‘mattress of the company’.”

In contrast, Mrs. Bloch has made the expe- rience that passing as “one of the boys”

does not work: it comes to communicative ambivalences if she banters amicably with her male (heterosexual) comrades, and she is perceived as a potential sexual object.

Her male comrades do not seem to take her sexual orientation seriously and inter- pret her way of interacting as an offer to initiate a sexual relationship.

The military ideal of hegemonic mas- culinity in connection with the dispositive of equality leads to assimilation pressure among gay and lesbian soldiers. This can even go as far as gay soldiers adopting a heterosexual identity. In an online forum a soldier writes:

“I’m gay, but when I entered the Forces, I did not out myself. Actually, I have become used to being hetero and even went to a brothel with the others (…) this has made me straight” (Soldatentreff.de 2008).

Other soldiers hide their homosexuality permanently. Non-commissioned officer Mrs. Lehmann explains:

“I did not know how the others would react, and I simply was not strong enough to cope with [rejection] (…) I made the girlfriend in- to a boyfriend, or (…) simply said that I’m single” (Mrs. Lehmann).

Air force officer Mr. Maier handled his

(9)

coming out differently depending on cir- cumstances. He first outed himself in 2000 when a decree determined that sexual iden- tity should have no influence on rank pro- motion and status (Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr 2000). However, when he was assigned a leadership position at another lo- cation, he was not that open about being gay because he did not want:

“to compromise myself or to become vulner- able, because I was only 21, sergeant, leader of a sub-unit, and all group-leaders of mine were at least four or five years older” (Mr.

Maier).

In accordance with the general attitude among soldiers in the Bundeswehr, Mr.

Maier understood that being identified as gay would mark him as weak and would thus potentially also undermine his authori- ty. Mrs. Lehmann deals differently with be- ing lesbian. She does not care about the heteronormative prejudices and reactions of her comrades:

“I have a picture [of my partner] on my desk (…) [And when a superior asks] ‘well, are you married’ (…) I nonchalantly and cheer- fully say: ‘yes! (…) And when they ask: ‘So, and what does your husband do?’, then I say:

‘well, my wife is a physiotherapist’” (Mrs.

Lehmann).

Some soldiers try to proactively prevent homophobic reactions by not drawing at- tention to themselves. Mrs. Meister is more reserved towards female comrades, and Mrs. Bloch would never flirt with women:

“I don’t want that someone has the im- pression, Mrs. X is now fancying Mrs. Y.”

Mrs. Lehmann even tries to avoid having to take showers together with her fellow soldiers:

“I have always taken my shower after or be- fore the others (…) because I was afraid that the others somehow felt stared at by me.

When (…) it could not be avoided, I show- ered with my eyes closed” (Mrs. Lehmann).

At the same time, lesbian and gay soldiers also employ irony or provocation. Mrs.

Lehmann for example provokes through subtle offensive jokes:

“I also play nasty jokes on them (…) when they are in their office and change clothes (…) I say: yes, you don’t have to get naked immediately” (Mrs. Lehmann).

Mrs. Meister chooses calculated provoca- tion to counteract the power of the disposi- tive of equality. She points to the normalcy of queerness by openly displaying her sexu- al identification: “Especially in situations [when others are looking] you have to put your hand on your partner’s butt/behind.”

Mrs. Meister also tries to modify gender norms and to oppose othering by under- mining heteronormative assumptions and by expanding the spectre of liveable mani- festations of femininity:

“I sometimes play with gender. I have bought a tailcoat (…) and I wear at least parts of it at official events with officers to break through their reserve a bit, and to demonstrate to them that there not only exists the little doll swaggering around in a Hugo-Boss-costume, but that there are also other kinds of women”

(Mrs. Meister).

Her partner, Mrs Bloch, described the reac- tions to this kind of gender play as follows:

“it is somehow accepted under the motto:

well, this is not a real woman anyway.” This kind of cross-dressing is thus handled, more often than not, through the exclusion of the deviant perceived woman from the category of femininity. Knowing very well that this is the case, Mrs. Meister reaffirms her insistence on the fluidity of gender through humour:

“Well, people know that I wear boxer shorts

(10)

(…) when they ask me why I do that, I sim- ply say: well, it’s because I need the space for my genitals” (Mrs. Meister).

In contrast, Mr. Maier calls out discriminat- ing behaviour. Describing how he reacts in situations in which homophobic remarks are made, he said:

“When someone says: Hey, look at the cock- suckers over there, then I simply say: I think you are crossing a line here. That is not okay.

After all, there could be someone sitting here at the table who is gay. – Yes, but there isn’t.

– Oh yes, there is” (Mr. Maier).

So, gay and lesbian soldiers employ strate- gies to cope with discrimination and other- ing. However, all of them remain attached to the ideal of hegemonic masculinity and the dispositive of strength insofar as the im- age of the masculinized gay man and that of the butch lesbian are promoted by gay and lesbian soldiers themselves.

H

OMOSEXUALITY AND WARRIORHOOD

Similar to discourses in the U.S. (Rimmer- man 1996, pos. 131), homophobic as- sumptions about gay men as weak, disrup- tive to cohesion, and a threat were used as arguments for their ’unfitness‘ for service since the foundation of the Bundeswehr.

This othering of gay men seems similar to that of black soldiers and women in the U.S. forces up until the 1970s: blacks were figured as promiscuous and sexually aggres- sive, and women were seen as destroying cohesion because of introducing jealousy, rivalry and the loss of discipline (D’Amico 1996, 24-26). Thus, the pejorative config- urations of non-white, feminine, and non- heterosexual marginalized bodies resemble each other, and while a connection be- tween homosexuality and virility existed in antique Greece and in the masculinist movement of the 19th this is not the case in the Bundeswehr.4

My findings show that the influence of the military ideal of hegemonic masculinity and the dispositives of strength and equali- ty lead to the rejection of what is perceived as female – camp gay men and feminine women – and to the (limited) acceptance of what is perceived as ‘male enough’ – gay men and lesbians who can pass as mascu- line. The Bundeswehr-version of military masculinity, which is characterized by the dispositives of strength and equality, thus unfolds normative power for all soldiers, male and female alike, stigmatizing soldiers who deviate from that normative frame- work of being a soldier. Yet while male ho- mosexuality is constructed in opposition to this hegemonic version of military mas- culinity, female homosexuality is partly con- tained within it.

Because of how the dispositives of strength and equality play out in different units, attitudes towards gay and lesbian sol- diers differ widely. The discrimination of gay and lesbian soldiers in the Bundeswehr nevertheless seems to exceed that in civil society, something that gay and lesbian sol- diers themselves are aware of. Sebastian Fröhlich said that the organisational culture

“always lags behind (…) in comparison to the normal, civil development.” The mili- tary ideal of hegemonic masculinity and traditional gender norms are more pro- nounced in the Bundeswehr than in Ger- man civil society. While military masculinity still is idealized by society as a whole in the U.S. (Belkin 2012, 8), in Germany mili- tarism and the image of the masculine war- rior hero had been rejected after World War II (Näser-Lather 2018). This discrepancy between military and civil culture in Ger- many could, together with the aforemen- tioned different occupational motivations of soldiers, account for part of the huge span of experiences that gay and lesbian soldiers have. In contrast to Sweden where the armed forces almost seem to have a pi- oneering role in implementing progressive gender norms and the inclusion of LGBT

(11)

personnel (Sundevall and Persson 2016, 119, 126), the Bundeswehr has only reluc- tantly dealt with changes of the male-cen- tred, heteronormative organizational cul- ture (Näser-Lather 2011, 21f, 142f.). As a consequence, the integration of LGBT per- sonnel is not always supported.

However, gay and lesbian soldiers also subvert the dominant ideal of hegemonic masculinity through queering tactics of provocation. Queering is, as Judith Butler (1993, 177) states, “what upsets and ex- poses passing; it is the act by which the racially and sexually repressive surface of conversation is exploded”. As such, queer- ing opens niches in which heteronormative gender is subverted and delegitimized as part of the everyday life of being a soldier.

In daily-life interaction, niches are opening up which subvert heteronormative gender stereotypes and which require their legiti- mation. Pointing to these dynamics and showing how gay and lesbian soldiers deal with the heteronormative violence of mili- tary culture, as was the aim of this paper, promises to contribute to the queering of militaristic gender norms in these terms.

N

OTES

1. This association, the Arbeitskreis Homosex- ueller Angehöriger der Bundeswehr e.V. (home- page: https://www.ahsab-ev.de/), was founded in 2002 and describes itself as the lobby for LGBTI persons in the Bundeswehr, fighting for equal op- portunities and against discrimination.

2. Some of my interview partners were recom- mended to me by Sebastian Fröhlich, at that time chairman of the working group for homosexual members of the Bundeswehr. I also knew a lesbian couple from my PhD field research (Näser-Lather 2011), who made my project known to others.

For my sample, I selected gay as well as lesbian soldiers from combat and support units. My inter- view partners were Sebastian Fröhlich

(01.05.2011); Mrs. Bloch and Mrs. Meister (25.03.2011); Mr. Brand (15.04.2011); Mr. Vogel (08.05.2011); Mr. Maier (01.05.2011); Mrs.

Lehmann (06.05.2011). All names have been

anonymized with the exception of Sebastian Fröh- lich, who is a public figure.

3. I became reserve officer during my PhD project to be able to research the Bundeswehr from with- in.

4. In Greece, between the 7th and the 3rd century BC, relationships between older males and younger boys functioned as rite de passagefor the development of virtues and warrior skills, in Athens as well as in Sparta (Dover 1983, 23f., 32, 168f.). In this context, super-virile homosexual males were framed as examples and role models of masculinity, heroism and leadership (Bruns 2001, 92-99).

5. The forum does not exist anymore, offline-copy archived by the author.

R

EFERENCES

· Aganauten.de. 2007. AGA-Fun. Ausbildersprü- che. [Online]. [22.07.2016] Available from:

www.aganauten.de.

· Apelt, M. 2006. Militärische Sozialisation. In:

Gareis, S., and Klein, P. eds. Handbuch Militär und Sozialwissenschaft.Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 26.39.

· Belkin, A. 2012. Bring me men. Military Mas- culinity and the Benign. Facade of American Em- pire, 1898–2001. New York: Columbia University Press.

· Bulmer, S. 2017. Sexualities in State Militaries.

In: Woodward, R., and Duncanson, C. eds. The Palgrave International Handbook of Gender and the Military. London: Palgrave McMillan, 163-176.

· Bundesminister der Verteidigung. 1996. ZDv 37/10. Anzugsordnung für die Soldaten der Bun- deswehr. Bonn: Bundesministerium der Verteidi- gung.

· Bruns, C. 2001. (Homo-)Sexualität als virile So- zialität. Sexualwissenschaftliche, antifeministische und antisemitische Strategien hegemonialer Männ- lichkeit im Diskurs der Maskulinisten 1880-1920.

In: Heidel, U., Micheler, S., and Tuider, E. eds.

Jenseits der Geschlechtergrenzen. Sexualitäten, Iden- titäten und Körper in Perspektiven von Queer Stu- dies. Hamburg: Männerschwarm, 87-108.

· Bundesminister der Verteidigung. 2003. Erlass B 173 zur ZDv14/3 “Sexuelles Verhalten von und zwischen Soldaten“. Bonn: Bundesministerium der Verteidigung.

· Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbrau- cherschutz. 2006. Soldatinnen- und Soldaten- Gleichbehandlungsgesetz vom 14. August 2006

(12)

(BGBl. I S. 1897, 1904), das zuletzt durch Artikel 4 des Gesetzes vom 31. Juli 2008 (BGBl. I S. 1629) geändert worden ist. [13.05.2016]. Available from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bun- desrecht/soldgg/gesamt.pdf.

· Bundesministerium der Verteidigung. 2008. A- 2600/1 Zentrale Dienstvorschrift Innere Führung, Selbstverständnis und Führungskultur.Bonn: Bun- desministerium der Verteidigung.

· Bundeswehr.de. 2018a. Frauen in der Bundes- wehr: Leistung entscheidet, nicht das Geschlecht.

[Online]. [23.07.2018]. Available from: https://

www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/start/stre- itkraefte/truppe/frauen/.

· Bundeswehr.de. 2018b. Stärke: Militärisches Per- sonal der Bundeswehr. [Online]. [23.07.2018].

Available from: https://www.bundeswehr.de/por- tal/a/bwde/start/streitkraefte/grundlagen/staer ke/.

· Bundeswehrforum.de. 2006. Besteht die Möglich- keit in der Stubeneinteilung mitzumischen? [On- line]. [23.05.2016]. Available from:

http://www.bundeswehrforum.de/forum/in- dex.php?topic=7093.msg63728#msg63728.

· Bundeswehrforum.de. 2009. Frauen bei der Bun- deswehr. [Online]. [22.01.2010]. Available from:

http://www.bundeswehrforum.de/forum/lauf- bahn-und-karriere/frauen-bei-der-bundeswehr- 20717/.

· Butler, J. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Dis- cursive Limits of “Sex”.London: Routledge.

· Buzer.de. 2018. Gesetz zur Änderung wehr- rechtlicher Vorschriften 2011 (Wehrrechtsände- rungsgesetz 2011 – WehrRÄndG 2011). [Online].

[23.07.2018]. Available from:

https://www.buzer.de/s1.htm?g=WehrR%C3%84 ndG+2011&f=1.

· Connell, R. 2006. Der gemachte Mann. Kon- struktion und Krise von Männlichkeiten. Wies- baden: VS-Verlag.

· D Amico, F. 1996. Race-ing and Gendering the Military Closet. In: Rimmerman, C. A. ed. Gay Rights, Military Wrongs. Political Perspectives on Lesbians and Gays in the Military. New York:

Routledge, 3-46.

· Dover, K. 1986. Homosexualität in der grie- chischen Antike. München: C.H. Beck.

· Finger, G. et al. 1966. Beurteilung der Wehr- diensttauglichkeit und Dienstfähigkeit Homosexu- eller. Bonn: Bundesministerium der Verteidigung.

· Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Ed. by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.

· Frohnhaus, G. 1998. Schwert in Frauenhand:

Emanzipationsmodell oder Schreckensvision? In:

Fronhaus, G., Grotkamp-Schepers, B., and Phi- lipp, R. eds. Schwert in Frauenhand. Weibliche Be- waffnung. Essen: Klartext-Verlag, 9-17.

· Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr. 2000. Füh- rungshilfe für Vorgesetzte “Umgang mit Sexuali- tät“. Bonn: Bundesministerium der Verteidigung

· Jäger, S. 2009. Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einführung. Münster: Unrast-Verlag.

Lindner, M. 1986. Homosexuelle in der Instituti- on Bundeswehr: Wehrpsychiatrische, rechtliche und sozialpsychologische Aspekte eines Dilemmas.

In: Gindorf, R. and Haeberle, E. eds. Sexualität als sozialer Tatbestand. Berlin und New York: de Gruyter, 211-232.

· Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer, E. 1995. Im Zeichen des Phallus. Die Ordnung des Geschlechtslebens im alten Rom. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

· Näser-Lather, M. 2011. Bundeswehrfamilien. Die Perzeption von Elternschaft und die Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Soldatenberuf. Baden Baden:

Nomos.

· Näser-Lather, M. 2018. Impeded Heroes. On the (self-) perception of German veterans. In:

Daxner, M.; Näser-Lather, M., and Nicola, S.-L.

eds. Conflict veterans. Discourses and Living Con- texts of an Emerging Social Group. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 110-133.

· Näser, M. 2010. ’Eine uniformierte Frau ist noch lange keine Soldatin’. Prozesse des (Un)Doing Gender in der Bundeswehr. In: Van Elsbergen, A.

et al. eds. Ansichten, Einsichten, Absichten. Mar- burg: Förderverein der Marburger kulturwissen- schaftlichen Forschung und Europäischen Ethno- logie e.V., 103-118.

· Rimmerman, C.A. ed. 1996. Gay rights, military wrongs. Political perspectives on lesbians and gays in the military. New York: Routledge

· Schiesser, S. 2002. Gender, Medien und Militär:

Zur Konstruktion weiblicher Stereotype in der Darstellung von Soldatinnen in den Printmedien der Bundeswehr. Beiträge zur feministischen Theo- rie und Praxis.61, 47–61.

· Seifert, R. 1996. Militär – Kultur – Identität.

Individualisierung und die soziale Konstruktion des Soldaten.Bremen: Ed. Temmen.

· Soldatentreff.de. 2007c. coming out beim Bund?5

· Soldatentreff.de. 2005a. schwul und beim Bund.

Soldatentreff.de. 2005b. *16/*. Luftwaffenaus- bildungsregiment in budel ??

Soldatentreff.de. 2005-2007. Frauen in der Bun- deswehr.

· Soldatentreff.de. 2006. Homosexuelle Soldatin- nen.

· Soldatentreff.de. 2007a. Interessante Waffen im Einsatz.

(13)

· Soldatentreff.de. 2008. schwule Soldaten.

· Stern. 2017. Das Tabu Homosexualität in der Bundeswehr. [Online]. [22.01.2018]. Available from:

https://www.stern.de/panorama/gesellschaft/bu ndeswehr—das-tabu-homosexualitaet-in-der- truppe-7308042.html.

· Storkmann, K. 2018. Das große Tabu. Homose- xuelle Soldaten in der Bundeswehr von 1955 bis zum Jahr 2000. In: Pieken, G. ed. Gewalt und Ge- schlecht. Männlicher Krieg – weiblicher Frieden?

Dresden: Sandstein Verlag, 288-299.

· Sundevall, P. and Persson, A. 2016. LGBT in the Military: Policy Development in Sweden 1944–

2014. Sex Res Soc Policy13, 119-129.

· Witzel, A. 2000. Das Problemzentrierte Inter- view. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung. [Online].

[13.09.2017]. Available from: http://www.quali- tative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-00/1-00witzel- d.htm.

· Zweiter Wehrdienstsenat. 1999. Urteil des zwei- ten Wehrdienstsenates vom 23.2.1999, 2 WD 15.98, NZWehrr.6, 250-55.

Referencer

RELATEREDE DOKUMENTER

The journey and the elsewhere as a tool for creation The journey sets up the context for production and appears as a space for creation and personal adventure. The principle of

In the materialisation of the mystery in film, whether this is a sort of divine aspiration (al- beit also traumatic), as in Dumont, or a driving force (as well as a force

The illness narratives have this dual relation to the medical narrative, while at the same time being part of a much longer tradition of writing the self, dealing with life

The Kinyankole interpretation of the female body is seen in the framework of the biosocial body, both as a physical and a social body with norms and core values of society to

What I would like to propose, is that we ta- ke perversely, maybe, the discourse about the crisis of Europe; the decline of Europe as hegemonic, as we take that as the

The method for strategic choice of measures is focused on facilitating collaboration between the actors that have a responsibility in planning the transport system as well as

The tweets demonstrate some of the issues that women of colour experienced within the movement as well as the additional challenges that arose surrounding the inclusion of queer

The Supplier guarantees that the Supplier in the performance of its services meets all the requirements under the Framework Agreement as well as requirements of